Cactus Game Design Message Boards

It is for situations like these that I think there should be a ROOT manager who is not participating in the monthly tournament. I'd bet that the guy who ran the tournament this month would not have ruled in your favor in this case...

I'd like to respond to this idea of having a non-playing manager of ROOT as it's been brought up a couple times by different people.  At first glance this seems like a great idea.  However, I personally don't feel like it's needed.  The current ROOT leadership (SS, Gabe, and I) have done an AWESOME job of making rulings for ROOT for the past year.  All three of us have made the right decisions even though they have been bad for us personally.  There was at least 2 months where I would have placed in the top 3 if a decision went my way, and yet it was ruled against me.  I think that we have been extremely objective.  And having 3 people having to vote to make decisions means that no one person can move things in a direction that is bad for the overall tournament.

The second problem with having non-playing judges is finding enough people to do it.  None of the current ROOT leadership really wants to be one of those people.  That means that we'd have to have 12 people who DID want to be a non-playing judge for a month (or less people doubling up).  But not just anyone could do it.  The rulings in ROOT games are often complicated and fit into the grey areas of Redemption.  Therefore the people would have to be VERY experienced and knowledgeable about the ruling intricacies of the game.  They would also have to make a solemn commitment to be responsible for their month or months of the year.  If we come to next October and whoever it is who volunteered now backs out because life got busy, then things fall apart.  We would have to have solid commitments from really qualified people.

That being said, There have been some qualified people (Prof A, Sir No, RDT) who have volunteered their time.  The ROOT leadership has seen this and discussed it.  Over the course of this month, we'll be talking to some other people to see if they too would like to donate their time to this cause.  I would ask that people do NOT respond to this message by saying, "I volunteer", because that could make things awkward for us having to tell some people that they are not quite experienced enough yet.  On the other hand, if you want to respond to the basic idea of having non-playing judges, feel free to share whether you think that is a good direction to move in.

a good idea because of thew MKC V.S Gabe match

This is actually another example of why I don't think it's necessarily needed.  SS and I ruled on that match.  Anytime one of the ROOT leadership is involved in a ruling question, the other 2 people make the ruling without them.  That way there can't be any conflict of interest.  Besides, we ruled the same way that Prof A suggested that a non-playing judge would have

No offense intended ""- as i think you would probably be a fair judge, but doesn't the first post say not to volunteer for this...  

I find it interesting that BubbleBoy often likes to give input on ROOT but have never participated.  Bubleboy, since you're so interested why not join?

I find it interesting that BubbleBoy often likes to give input on ROOT but have never participated.  Bubleboy, since you're so interested why not join?

I would love to join. I probably will in June. It's just that I have to work really hard to be ready for all my AP tests in May, and I spend too much time on the boards already, and this would just be too much temptation and distraction for me.

I might be a regular ROOTer next year, as I think that year will be less time-consuming than this one.